Comments: 28
Beastboss [2013-05-17 05:16:22 +0000 UTC]
Finally Independents, get an election
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Jkthelemonking [2012-11-23 23:25:11 +0000 UTC]
CONECTICUT! ITS SHRINKING! WHY! WHAT'S WRONG WITH MY HOME!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
YNot1989 In reply to Lt-Fleur [2011-09-24 20:27:53 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, in 2028 the Virgin Islands had been added to Puerto Rico, and the other one is the Lesser Antilles
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Same-side [2011-08-09 22:51:02 +0000 UTC]
It's not clear what the total electoral numbers for each would come to. I could probably add them up myself, but it would be more convenient to see them in the description next to the candidates' names.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Parhe [2011-04-05 06:13:19 +0000 UTC]
Thanks for the explanation, sorry for my constant questions and complaints
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
YNot1989 In reply to Parhe [2011-04-05 06:23:01 +0000 UTC]
no problem I like it when people take an interest in my scenarios.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Parhe [2011-04-05 05:24:43 +0000 UTC]
But Texas has on eof the fastest growing populations in america, though california is growing at half the rate
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
YNot1989 In reply to Parhe [2011-04-05 06:03:53 +0000 UTC]
This timeline takes into account the effect of climate change on mass human migrations (like the dust bowl that drove so many out west). In this TL climate change has made Texas even more lifeless than it is today, so a lot of people have fled further out west to Colorado, Washington, Oregon, etc.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
YNot1989 In reply to xDraconianKingx [2010-10-22 23:50:54 +0000 UTC]
Well my handle is exactly the same too. I was wondering exactly how many of my watchers are also regulars to my work on future.wikia.com.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
YNot1989 In reply to xDraconianKingx [2010-10-23 02:16:04 +0000 UTC]
Well that and we have almost nothing in common with the founders anymore, even the most conservative members of the Tea Party wouldn't OPENLY endorse slavery, or that only white male land owners should be allowed to vote.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
xDraconianKingx In reply to YNot1989 [2010-10-23 03:29:22 +0000 UTC]
Exactly, I get severely annoyed with hearing how things are unconstitutional nowadays. About half the things our presidents have done to make our country great are TECHNICALLY "unconstitutional" if we're to go by the founders' ideals. I think this idea that we have to go back to the Constitution is understandable, but to go by the literal interpretation is a bit messed up because of the differing ideals. I like the idea that our government should be held accountable for their actions just as you or I would, and even though I grew up in the state of Texas, I find the presidency of George W. Bush to be the most horrendous thing alive. Granted, I think personally Cheney was the one really pulling the strings, but that's besides the point. Sure there's worse presidents than Dubya [IE. Ulysses S. Grant or Herbert Hoover.] but in overall loyalty to the constitution, yeah Bush was the worst.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
YNot1989 In reply to xDraconianKingx [2010-10-23 04:58:28 +0000 UTC]
Meh, Hoover wasn't as bad as history has painted him; Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge were the ones who most contributed to the policies that led to the Great Depression.
Personally I think the single worst president in American history was probably Ronald Reagan. Nixon, for all his evils, probably deserves more credit than any single American President for winning the Cold War, where Reagan was just lucky that the Russians put Gorbachev in power. His "small government," bs, contributed more to economic deregulation than any president before or since, and his claim of fiscal conservatism was marginalized by the fact that he lowered taxes and ramped up defense spending beyond any sane metric, leading to huge deficits.
Sorry, but when you get me on a damning-conservatives rant its hard for me to stop.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
xDraconianKingx In reply to YNot1989 [2010-10-23 05:49:52 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, but I think Reagan is more remembered because of the Iran Hostage situation. Yeah it's amazing that they were freed after he took office, but I think Jimmy Carter could have done it had he been given more time.
I think we need either another FDR or another Bill Clinton. FDR for his own policies during the Great Depression which curiously were more socialist than what conservatives paint Obama as [ie. the Obama-Stalin posters]. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, probably wasn't the best HUSBAND in the world but we're not judging the man based on his cavalier personal life. The guy had what a $200 million [or billion?] surplus and ultimately came the closest to killing Osama bin Laden, then regarded as "doing too much" now regarded as "Not doing enough." Of course, watching Bill kick the crap out of the Fox News guy makes my day every time.
Though....I think in all honesty, people demonize Colin Powell based on the fact he presented the case to the United Nations for the invasion of Iraq. Yeah, he should have looked closer at the reports, but in the end, he was duped just like the rest of us, but because he didn't even question Bush's decision [as he SHOULD have done] he gets a black mark on his records. Had he questioned and even refused to present the case to the UN, I'd imagine that the world would view him differently today. Though, I applaud him for criticizing the McCain-Palin campaign for smearing Obama.
Speaking of, if Obama has something disatrous happen and he somehow loses re-election to Sarah Palin, I'd probably either move to the UK OR I'd open a liquor store that sells lotto tickets! HA!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
YNot1989 In reply to xDraconianKingx [2010-10-23 07:24:29 +0000 UTC]
We have another bill Clinton his name is Barack Obama, sigh... And if America is doing anywhere near as good at the end of the Obama administration as it was at the end of the Clinton Administration, I'll call it a good presidency.
For me if Palin wins, I'll remain the social pariah I already am, passionately screaming at the top of my lungs, hoping to change a mind or two.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
xDraconianKingx In reply to YNot1989 [2010-10-23 13:53:44 +0000 UTC]
Believe me, I want Obama to be one of the greatest presidents, but to do that, I think he's gotta light some fires under some asses in Congress. Namely, what he's gotta do is pull something that FDR would do and do a little fireside chat. I'd bet his approval ratings would spike if all he said was "These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power."
Blow a big freaking whistle on some people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
YNot1989 In reply to xDraconianKingx [2010-10-23 17:38:37 +0000 UTC]
Well you have to remember that during his greatest successes as President, passing healthcare reform, bailing out the automakers, and the stimulus package, he had at most 60 democrats who were barely united, he'll be lucky to have a majority in both houses after the midterms, FDR had 69 democrats in 1934. LBJ had 68 democrats after the 64 elections. Obama has to compromise or else nothing gets done, its the reality of our legislative process. It sucks, but its what we're stuck with.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
AmongTheSatanic [2010-08-30 02:21:15 +0000 UTC]
Impossible. People hate Palin way too much for her to get presidency.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
YNot1989 In reply to AmongTheSatanic [2010-08-30 02:28:14 +0000 UTC]
"The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter" -Winston Churchill
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hEyJude4 [2010-08-30 00:30:31 +0000 UTC]
I actually know someone with the first name Charles and the middle Patrick, but his last name is Kennedy
👍: 0 ⏩: 0